David Miliband: On almost every occasion that I meet or speak to Secretary Rice, we discuss the situation in the middle east. We certainly did so on Sunday, when I last spoke to her, and I will obviously meet her at the G8 Foreign Ministers' meeting on Thursday in Japan. I know that the middle east will be a major topic there, and we are looking forward to her latest report on her recent visit, and also to having further discussions on how to advance a process that, I think it is fair to say, is slightly more promising that it would have in a Question Time two or three weeks ago. The developments in Gaza and the Lebanon, and the opening of the Israel-Syria talks, are creating a more propitious environment for the Israeli-Palestinian track. It is important that we should not get carried away by any sense of optimism, but there are some important stirrings there.

David Miliband: I am very happy to confirm to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are 100 per cent. committed to the pursuit of a diplomatic resolution to the problem in respect of Iran's nuclear intentions, which are, of course, a threat to stability right across the region. There is now an ever wider coalition ready to put pressure on the Iranian regime, and also to try to make clear to the Iranian people that a major offer of economic, cultural and scientific co-operation is waiting for them. The economic malaise that currently afflicts Iran is the result of the choices made by the Iranian Government, but there is an alternative for them, and we are committed to make sure that the sanctions and incentives reflect that.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that among the most vulnerable group—those who are hit hardest—are disabled people, who have higher energy costs and often higher food costs as well? Inequality among the most vulnerable has widened.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I shall say something about that in a moment.
	Ctizens advice bureaux reported a sharp increase in the number of mortgage arrears problems, which were up 35 per cent. in the first two months of 2008, compared with the same period in 2007. They also report a continuing increase in problems relating to basic essentials, such as gas, electricity, water, telephone and council tax debts. The CAB's briefing reports that the combination of big increases in household bills, especially fuel, and rising housing costs is putting additional pressure on people's finances when they are already stretched to the limit. Bureaux reported that they had dealt with 215,000 new debt problems in the first two months of 2008 alone and the report goes on to list examples that all have one thing in common: people on low or fixed incomes who are living at the margin of economic viability. For many people, the surge in living costs is turning a situation that is just manageable into one that is not.
	We have tabled this motion to give the House an opportunity to debate the soaring cost of living and the Government's lack of room for manoeuvre in responding to it. The first part of the motion expresses the House's deep concern at the rapidly rising cost of living. To be candid, there are two reasons for that concern. The first, as the CAB report demonstrates, is a compassionate concern because inflation hits hardest those with the least bargaining power: pensioners on fixed incomes, the lowest paid in the most marginal jobs and people with long-term disabilities who are living on benefits. When an economic shock strikes, those groups, by definition, will be the least able to cope with it and the least likely to have any savings cushion. All of us in Parliament must voice their concerns and fears because they have little bargaining power themselves.
	There is, however, a more calculating economic reason for the rising cost of living. Rapidly rising inflation also affects those with more bargaining power in the employment marketplace. Their response to the rapidly rising cost of living poses the genuine threat to our future economic stability, hence the second part of the motion, which acknowledges the dangers of a wage-price spiral.
	As the economy slows and earnings stagnate while prices rise inexorably, the average family is already £400 a year worse off than it was a year ago. The current official retail prices index inflation is 4.3 per cent. a year, but the expectation of future inflation is as important as the level today in determining the behavioural responses to it. Every hon. Member knows from discussions with constituents that people's perception of price increases and their expectations of future inflation is far higher than the official data suggest—unsurprisingly, in view of the figures that I have cited.
	Mounting evidence shows that rising prices are feeding into higher wage demands and settlements. Pay rises in the energy, water, chemicals and engineering sectors in the quarter to April were at or above current inflation. The recent Shell tanker drivers' settlement has subsequently added a further turn of the ratchet. The Incomes Data Services data, which were published this morning, show how many private sector settlements now include RPI linking, reigniting memories of the disastrous flirtation with indexation in the 1970s.
	Yesterday's announcement of a vote for industrial action by local authority workers rejecting a 2.45 per cent. pay offer underlines the scale of the challenge that the Chancellor will face as he repeats his exhortation for pay rises to be kept in line with the Government's 2 per cent. inflation target, even as inflation looks set to reach double that figure. The prospect of a summer of discontent looms and Conservative Members wait with interest to see how a Labour Government, desperate for cash from the unions to save the Labour party from bankruptcy, will deal with the new militancy on wages on top of the already aggressive demands for further competitiveness-eroding employment legislation.
	Last week, the Governor of the Bank of England gave a frank appraisal of the threat to Britain's economy from the rising cost of living. With consumer prices index inflation up from 1.8 per cent. to 3.3 per cent. in the past nine months and a raft of further price increases to feed through, the Governor warned of the dangers of a wage response, which would mean that the jump in food and oil prices was embedded in our economy through an old-fashioned wage-price spiral, with wage earners trying to compensate themselves for rising prices, thus ensuring the further erosion of the value of their wages.
	Let me take the opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that the Governor of the Bank of England is right. Given that growth is slowing significantly below the Treasury's Budget estimate, if the inflationary pressure that has surged through into the index in the past months is reflected in future wage rises, Britain risks revisiting the 1970s, with entrenched inflation and stagnant growth—stagflation in all its horror. By warning of his determination to stick to the Chancellor's inflation target, the Governor is effectively throwing down the gauntlet to the unions, with the clear threat, "Go for the inflation-matching wage rises and I will bust you with growth-killing and unemployment-creating interest rate increases." They should listen to the Governor of the Bank of England.
	We will support the Government when they do the right thing on pay restraint, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. However, after two years of stagnant real wage increases, let us be clear about what the Chancellor is demanding. As with taxes, so with wage policy—let us have an end to stealth and a new openness; an explanation of policies, tough or tender, up front and without spin. I put it to the Chief Secretary that the Chancellor is demanding a cut in living standards—is not that the essence of a demand for below inflation wage settlements? Is not the legacy of the Prime Minister's 10 years in the Treasury falling living standards for British workers? Yes, inflation has to be controlled, so that Britain can maintain its competitiveness and be in a position to respond when the upturn comes. That means difficult times ahead. The truth is that the Government are in no position to help out and soften the blow of this painful adjustment to economic reality.

Yvette Cooper: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that his own party's research document has recognised that in real terms, since 2001-02—even in advance of some of the most recent changes that we have set out—families with children are better off than they were in 1997, or in 2001-02. They are seeing real improvements in their income and their support. For example, lone parents are £12 a week better off and couples with children where one parent works full time can be more than £700 a year better off. That is why we are also providing people with additional support through tax credits. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this extra support being provided through tax credits and by increasing child benefit in the next year and the winter fuel payment this year is funded by the increase in alcohol duty that Conservative Members have opposed. They are opposing our measures to provide additional support to families at a time when people are under pressure, particularly from their winter fuel bills.
	It is worth reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) suggested, on what the Conservatives' remedy might be. They have said that they would not put up alcohol duty and would have lower borrowing—not that they can point to any kind of historical record to support their position. We must remember that this is a party that has never proposed lower borrowing. Instead, it has repeatedly proposed spending increases and tax cuts at the same time—that would push borrowing up. Over the past 12 months alone, the Conservatives have called for £10 billion of extra spending on unfunded tax cuts. At the previous election, just at the time they now say they would have cut borrowing, they were actually calling for billions of pounds in extra borrowing—the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies costed their tax and benefit plans alone at an extra £5 billion. In 2005, they were also planning billions of pounds of extra spending on top of that, on things such as the pupil passport and the patients passport for private care, not to mention defence, the right to buy, tuition fees and offshore processing centres for asylum seekers.
	At the 2001 election it was the same story: a £3 billion unfunded tax cut on savings, which would help those on the highest incomes, but billions of pounds more spending on asylum seekers' reception centres, defence and other areas. The Conservatives would not have cut borrowing; instead, they promised again and again to dig themselves a massive black hole for the public finances. So much for telling us to fix the roof; they promised to dig up the foundations.
	This Government did invest in fixing the roof. Not only did we mend the hospital roofs, the school roofs and the council house roofs that the Conservative party neglected and abandoned, but we invested in the infrastructure and skills that the British economy needs. We have been operating within our fiscal rules to bring down debt substantially and to cut the bills of the economic failure and high unemployment that we inherited from the Conservatives. That is why we have the flexibility to support the economy right now.
	Britain, like other countries, is facing a difficult time as a result of world economic problems. Families across Britain are facing the pinch. They are facing higher prices as a result of increasing world food and fuel prices, but these world economic problems need a serious response—with substance, not just showmanship, and with serious policies not just spin—to help households and businesses through the more difficult times. That is why the House should reject the posturing of the Conservative party and back the Government amendment.

Vincent Cable: That does not follow at all. The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the main emphasis of policy has to be on monetary policy and if interest rates have to fall—which I think is what he wants to happen to deal with the slow-down in the economy—fiscal policy would have to be tightened. There is a problem with fiscal policy, as the OECD identified, although it is less extreme than the hon. Gentleman claims. Were we to go into a period of slump, or of prolonged stagnation as they had in Japan, it would be very difficult for the Government to embark on strikingly Keynesian policies, because of the erosion in the fiscal rules that has already taken place. But that is not what the motion says. It gives the impression that we can simultaneously have fiscal austerity and crowd-pleasing measures of assistance and that is a fundamental contradiction.
	I shall go through the seven proposals. The first is to give 1.8 million couples an extra £2,000 a year, addressing the couple penalty in the tax credit system. That is a good policy, and I applaud it, but the concluding sentence makes it clear that the change
	"will be implemented as savings are generated through our radical programme of welfare reform."
	In other words, it may happen, but it would take time and it certainly would not provide much relief to hard-pressed families in the short term.
	The second proposal, which interested me particularly, was shifting the burden of taxation away from families. It talks about
	"our commitment to increase the proportion of taxation raised through green taxes by rebalancing taxation away from taxing 'good' things, like jobs and investment, towards taxing 'bad' things, like pollution and carbon emissions."
	When I read that, I felt like a member of the General Medical Council reading an essay by Dr Raj Persaud. I felt that I had read that somewhere before and, in fact, I wrote it. The Conservatives have lifted our green tax switch policy of several years ago.
	As a candid friend, I can tell the Conservatives in strict confidence that adopting Liberal Democrat policy in that respect would not be without problems. There are two ways in which that Conservative policy—I take it as a compliment that they have borrowed it from us—could be delivered. The first is to have a carbon tax, which in reality is a tax on household fuel and even I am not brave enough to argue for that. The second is to increase taxation on transport fuels. A bit can be raised from aviation taxes, but the green tax switch, which is the third element in the Conservative proposals, in fact involves increasing taxation on the motorist.
	I do not know whether the editor of the  Daily Mail has been told yet that the Conservatives are campaigning to increase taxes on the motorist. I am not even sure that the shadow Chancellor has been told, because he told  The Daily Telegraph last week that he was committing himself to not increasing the 2p rate on duty on petrol in the autumn, which struck me as an extraordinarily silly and impetuous thing to do. It might be that the Government will not increase it, and that might perhaps be the right thing to do, depending on conditions at the time. We do not know what the Government's fiscal position will be in the autumn. We do not know what the oil price will be. Any sensible person would wait before making such a commitment.

Rob Marris: In that context, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his party's policy of an 80 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom by 2050? World demand for oil is increasing, and the suggestions that he seems to put forward in respect of bottlenecks because of lack of investment is a policy for increasing oil output. The rest of the world continues to use oil. The macho gesture politics of 80 per cent. cuts in the United Kingdom—probably in isolation from almost the rest of the world—are ridiculous, given that demand for oil is increasing and will continue to increase. I urge the hon. Gentleman's party to reflect on that; otherwise, it will go on asking UK residents to undergo a painful transition, which will not prevent climate change.

Nigel Griffiths: I understand why the hon. Member does not want to respond to my points. Of course, people are having to examine their individual budgets and I am sympathetic about that. However, without the economic stability and considerable growth that we have enjoyed, which no other G7 or advanced industrial country has experienced, people would not today enjoy a standard of living unparalleled in history—we all want to co-operate to protect that. Of course, I want young couples to access the housing market. I realise that people have suffered problems and I am therefore delighted by the two thirds increase in real terms investment in local authority housing. That has been paralleled by more people than ever owning their own homes.
	Even the amount of repossessions today is a fraction of the 250,000 that happened under the Conservatives in the three years at the beginning of the 1990s

Nigel Griffiths: I do not accept that. [hon. Members: "Why not?"] I will explain in a moment. I am about to read from the letter of the Governor of the Bank of England, which explains the precise reason. I would have expected all hon. Members to read it before the debate. The letter, which directly covers the point, states that
	"in the year to May world agricultural prices increased by 60 per cent. and UK retail food prices by 8 per cent.;"—
	there is obviously a discrepancy there—
	"oil prices rose by more than 80 per cent. to average $123 a barrel and UK retail fuel prices increased by 20 per cent; wholesale gas prices increased by 160 per cent. and UK household and electricity and gas bills by around 10 per cent."
	Bills have gone up, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that the price of retail items such as electrical goods has dropped as China and other countries have stepped up their production. The prices of other goods have also fallen. I therefore do not accept the full implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments—that the average is higher. That is not the case.
	The Labour Government have ensured that even more money is to be given to those over 60 for the winter fuel payment this year because of the rise in fuel prices. The Chancellor keeps that under constant review. Although current prices are worrying for families, in the early 1990s inflation peaked at 10 per cent. and unemployment reached 3 million. That caused great hardship and problems. The position today is far from that.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is talking about only a couple of years, and about different sections of the pay scale. If he were to look at the figures over a period of time, they would be quite different from those he has quoted.
	People facing difficult times want the reassurance that however much prices increase, their incomes will be safeguarded. If they have a family, they will also want to know that the party in Government understands that having children costs more, and that those costs need to be covered. That is why this Government were right to increase child benefit and to make changes to the tax credit system to ensure that in difficult times people know that some safeguards are built into the system for their children. That has been a hallmark of this Government, and the Conservatives have consistently opposed it.
	I must add that the Liberal Democrats have also consistently opposed that, too. Their attack on the Conservative party during the debate has been disgraceful, because I am sure it is mostly to do with the Henley by-election, after which they will resume normal business and criticise us instead of the Conservatives.

Sally Keeble: If the Liberal Democrats care about what happens to people during these difficult economic times—we must all accept that we are currently going through difficult economic times, and that they will continue for a while—they should be committed to policies that protect those on low pay and families, and give people the chance to rebuild their families' finances, and help to build the UK economy.
	This Government's other big commitment is in tackling child poverty. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) will produce some recent figures showing an increase in the number of children living in poverty. However, if he looks at the Joseph Rowntree report produced last year, he will see that the big increases in child and pensioner poverty both occurred during the '80s. It is widely recognised that the current Government's policies have served in particular to increase the incomes of families with children and those of pensioners, which is why much of the recent debate about the tax credit and the 10p tax rate focused on the single working poor. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate, I hope she will say what the Government will do to make sure that the incomes of people in that group are protected as well.
	I have a few further points to make about those policies of ours that will particularly stand my constituents in good stead. I well remember that during the last recession the nutritional value of the food consumed by some of the children in our capital city deteriorated to an unacceptable extent. The Government have done good work on food for schoolchildren, such as making sure that schools have kitchens and that children have free fruit, and similar support will be important now. That is a crucial element of this Government's commitment to protecting people on low incomes. Another is the winter fuel allowance. That replaced the Conservatives' awful cold weather payments, which in fact left most people cold during the winter.
	One of the biggest changes—and one of the major ways in which the Government have equipped people to withstand recession—is the strong commitment to employment and job creation. That, above all, will make it possible for people to manage, although there will be problems with pay and the cost of living. In particular, it will make it possible for them to maintain their mortgage payments and keep their homes, which is extremely important.
	When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I will be grateful if she deals with the following points in particular. What steps will the Government take to support single working people—particularly young people—who will face difficult times in the coming period? Secondly, might the Government extend some of the fuel poverty provisions? We have been incredibly generous to pensioners with winter fuel payments, but might that be extended to people with disabilities and people with young children, who will also find it difficult to pay their fuel bills if prices increase further and their income does not? Will she also think about driving costs, which particularly affect people such as my constituents who live in an area that does not have very good public transport to take them to work, and many of whom work shifts? In particular, will she consider the Council of Mortgage Lenders proposals for providing some support for families who get into financial difficulties with their mortgages, so that they do not have to wait nine months to get relief? I am sure that that will be an increasing pressure for some families, and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend addressed that point.
	Finally, let me repeat that I believe that people will see that it is our party and our Government that have the policies to carry them through the difficult months ahead.

Graham Stuart: This has been an interesting debate, in so far as we have had sober, thoughtful speeches from MPs on the Conservative Benches, who, like me, spend every weekend on the streets talking to people in their constituencies.
	Every Saturday morning, I try to run a street surgery, as I call it, on a street corner in one of the four towns in my constituency, whether on Toll Gavel in Beverley, on Newbegin in Hornsea, in Withernsea or in Hedon. Week after week, people come to speak to me, take me aside and talk about the difficulties that they are having in meeting their basic bills. I have been struck—and pleased, as someone who wants to see a Conservative Government and believes that that would be good for this country—to find that people say, "I've always voted Labour, but now I'm going to vote Conservative." When we look at the context in which people say that and at the weight of their disappointment and despair, and when we consider how much they believe that they were promised and how little they believe has been delivered, we realise how serious the situation is.
	Yesterday, a constituent from Withernsea wrote to me to say that their family have a modest family car, but they are selling it because they can no longer afford to run it. Withernsea is a town and has a relatively large number of services, but residents are dependent on other services elsewhere. Other constituents of mine, who do not live in a town but in one of the many villages across the constituency are in a similar position financially but cannot possibly do without a car because of the dearth of public transport and the difficulties that that causes.
	When my constituents speak to me at the street surgery, they are pleased to have that opportunity because it at least allows them to feel a connection. Someone from Withernsea, on a very low income, sees certain services withdrawn and needs to feel a connection. They need to feel that there is some way in which they can influence those in power so that they can cause change. When they hear a debate such as this about the cost of living and when, as lifelong Labour supporters, they recall that the Labour party was founded and led by people such as Keir Hardie precisely in order to represent the working poor—the working class, as it traditionally was—they see, instead, a Labour party that has lost its sense of mission. Hundreds of Members—all of us here—are on very high wages compared with my constituents, with high expenses support, too. When those people discover that Labour Members no longer judge participation in such important debates as relevant, their disappointment is compounded further. When they hear speeches such as the one given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), whom we all know is extremely close to the Prime Minister, and hear his master's voice speaking with such a level of complacency while the traditional supporters of the Labour Government are suffering and struggling, not least in rural areas, their sense of disappointment is palpable.
	I wish I could feel triumph as I sense the political ground shifting as people come over to support the Conservatives, but Labour Members like to say that that shift is not so much a positive endorsement of the Conservatives, and they have a point. In fact, people are turning to us because they want to believe that there is a positive alternative and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is offering one.
	Most of all, it is the failure of the Labour party and its representatives to stay connected with its original core support that is the problem. A former Labour leader and Prime Minister said, I think, that "the party is a mission or it is nothing"—I might be misquoting him, but that was certainly his point. Where is the sense of mission on the Government Benches? Where is the commitment to do something about those with least in our society?
	What has happened to the poverty rate over the past three years? It has increased each year for three years. What has happened to child poverty for the past three years? It has increased. What has happened to fuel poverty? It has increased. Where are the Labour voices speaking up on behalf of the people who they were traditionally here to represent? I could not believe that a spokesman for this failing Government could mention Nye Bevan—he would be spinning in his grave to think that a Labour Government could so let down those with least in our society.
	I shall not be able to match the eloquence and power of the speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox). His was one of the best speeches that I have heard in this House for some time. He has some rhetorical gifts—perhaps that is a professional requirement—but his speech's power mostly stems from the fact that, like me, he speaks to people who are living the reality of this Government's policies. He is reflecting their passion when he stands up and demands a response or some sense of feeling from Ministers.
	I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the word that I am about to use, but the Minister in question used it in his blog. He asked, "Why is everyone so bloody miserable?" That from a Minister who is driven around in a chauffeur-driven Prius—

Mark Hoban: The argument at the centre of the debate is that we are about to face a period of prolonged inflation above the 3 per cent. target, as the Governor of the Bank of England made clear last week. As a consequence, families will find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
	However, at the very time when families are under such pressure, the Government, because of their mismanagement of public finances, can do little to lift the burden. That is why people are not turning to the Government for a solution to their problems, but are asking how they can get higher pay increases. The pressure for higher pay would be less if the Government were in a position to help.
	Before I elaborate on that, I shall comment on some of the speeches in the debate. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury offered a prime example of the Government's approach to the economy. They want to take the credit in the good times and blame someone else in the bad—an approach evident time and again in her speech. She talked about global pressures, but did not mention the deterioration in the exchange rate over the course of the past year, or the impact that that has had on inflation.
	In his letter to the Chancellor last week, the Governor of the Bank of England said:
	"Price inflation of imported goods rose to its highest since 1995, in part reflecting the substantial depreciation of sterling...A key factor...has been sterling's 12 per cent. depreciation since July 2007."
	The markets have spoken on this Government's economic policies and found them wanting.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) tried to make a point by misreading our motion. When they came to office in 1997, the Government were prudent in their management of the public finances and followed our spending plans, and we have made it clear that they would be in a much better position to help families in difficult times now if they had continued to do so.
	Only two Labour Back Benchers spoke in the debate, and the first, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), made a remarkably arrogant speech. He gave the game away when he responded to an intervention by saying that people will realise how marvellous this Government are when the scales fall from their eyes. There we have it—it is the people's fault that the Government have their lowest poll ratings in 11 years, and their fault that they cannot understand what the Government are doing. But I credit the people with more sense than that: they have seen through the Government, and they have worked it out that the Government have failed the people of this country.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) identified opportunities that the Government had had to make decisions in the long-term interests of the country. He said that they could have made some significant choices that would have reduced our dependence on oil. When the Economic Secretary responds to the debate, I hope that she will admit that the Government's policy for tackling inflation over the next couple of years is to cause a real decline in people's living standards. The Governor of the Bank of England was brave enough to admit that, although no one on the Treasury Benches, including the Chief Secretary, has been able to accept it. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will be refreshingly candid when she concludes the debate.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) asked the Government to take more action to tackle problems of fuel poverty and the cost of fuel. When she tries to explain the Government's actions to the electorate, her problem will be that the mismanagement of the public finances over the past 11 years has left little money in the coffers that could be used to help her constituents and to lift the burden from them.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) spoke eloquently about the problems for people in rural communities who face an increased cost of living. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) highlighted the impact that income tax rates will have on people on low pay. The reality is that it was the protest against the scrapping of the 10p rate that led to the Government having to increase personal allowances for one year only. However, even that will not compensate the lowest paid for the losses that they have suffered as a result of the abolition of the 10p rate.
	In his Mansion house speech last week, the Governor of the Bank of England was frank in his assessment of the times that we are in when he said:
	"This year our real take-home pay will rise at a slower pace than national productivity. Rising fuel, gas, electricity and food prices mean that average real take-home pay will stagnate this year. It will not be an easy time, and I know that some families will find it particularly difficult."
	He is right: families will find it particularly difficult. In difficult times, families instinctively turn to the Government for help and support but we know that, because this Government failed to prepare for economic uncertainty, they have little to offer. As the OECD pointed out, the Government's loose fiscal policy during the good times means that they have little room for manoeuvre in the bad times. International league tables show that this country has one of the largest budget deficits among all the industrialised nations. Other Governments' more prudent management of public finances means that they are able to cut taxes on families and businesses, but what have this Government done? They have put up taxes on cars, small businesses and successful entrepreneurs.
	It is a sign that the Government have run out of road at home that they are forced to place their trust in global initiatives and summits in the hope that there might be some relief. The Government's amendment reflects that, and shows that they hope that OPEC and the Doha trade round will come to their rescue.
	Only in their second terms do Prime Ministers usually find international gatherings more attractive than domestic politics. However, this Prime Minister has not reached even his first anniversary of coming to office before deciding that he will receive a warmer welcome in Brussels and Jeddah than at home.
	We believe that the long-term solution to the Government's mismanagement of the public finances is to share the proceeds of growth. In that way, although public spending increases in real terms, its growth will be less than the rate of growth for the economy as a whole. That will create the resources to reduce borrowing and help support families and businesses.
	That was the approach that the Prime Minister rejected when he was Chancellor, but he has been forced through necessity to adopt it in the current spending round. His problems with managing the public finances mean that families facing a squeeze on their living standards also know that they cannot expect the Government to help them because the Government failed to prepare for difficult times.
	The Government did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, and families are now faced with a challenge. The Government are saying, "We can't help you because we can't afford to help you", so do people sit tight and wait for things to get better or do they push for higher wages?
	People are economising and finding it difficult to make ends meet, and we have heard examples of that in the debate. I think that there will be pressure for higher wages, and the risk is always that higher wage rates will entrench inflation in the economy. That would put further pressure on the Bank of England to respond with higher interest rates.
	The Government call for wage restraint for the public and private sectors, but their biggest challenge lies with the heavily unionised public sector. The Government are in hock to their paymasters, and how they handle the public sector trade unions will be their big test. Yesterday, local government workers rejected a 2.45 per cent. pay increase. The general secretary of their union, Dave Prentis, said his members were
	"fed up and angry that they are expected to accept pay cut after pay cut while bread and butter prices go through the roof...Most of them are low-paid workers, who are hit hardest by food and fuel price hikes".
	Over the coming months, the Government will come under increasing pressure from their union paymasters to soften their position on pay—but will they be tough enough to withstand the pressure from the unions, when they know that Labour Party funding depends upon trade union contributions?
	There can be no guarantee that this Prime Minister will stand firm. Anatole Kaletsky said recently that the
	"biggest worry has been Mr. Brown's surprising combination of weakness and short-termism since he became Prime Minister. If he responds to minor hiccups such as the 10p tax row by giving away £2.7 billion, one wonders how he would react to a genuine challenge to his authority on the scale of the Winter of Discontent?"
	Will the Prime Minister find the courage to stand up and face down the trade union bosses, or will he yet again show how weak he is by caving in to their pressure?
	The Government have failed to provide for a rainy day, and that is why they now have to increase taxes on families and businesses rather than help them by reducing the burden of taxes. Because of that pressure, families will look for greater pay increases, and that is where the danger lies for the economy. That danger could have been avoided if the Government had prepared the economy and public finances for the challenging times, rather than mismanaged the public finances, putting the future of the economy and of families at risk.

Kitty Ussher: We have, with the shift from pillar one to pillar two of the common agricultural policy, and we continue to make our case. The right hon. Gentleman's party would not even engage on the European stage; if it were still in power, we would not have achieved that progress.
	In an intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) pointed out that the Conservative party—far from anticipating what it now says was the need for a different economic policy during what the Governor calls the non-inflationary consistent expansion, or NICE, years—went into the last two elections explaining how it would spend more while cutting taxes. It would, apparently, have surfed the wave of economic prosperity—in a way that would have created even more of a problem, given the black hole in its finances.
	That gets to the core of today's debate. On the one hand, the Conservative party says that it will match our spending; at the same time, it tries to imply that it will return money to the British people by sharing the proceeds of growth. I do not know where that extra money would come from. I can only presume that the Conservatives are hoping that the black hole in their finances will suddenly spew out pound coins for them to distribute liberally throughout the economy.
	That all relates to what we have seen in this Opposition day debate. The Conservatives are trying to imply, in a salesman-like way, that there is some huge problem with the Government's record on the cost of living. At the same time, their own words in their own research document show that the standard of living has risen under the Government. Since 2001-02, pensioner couples have been £30 a week better off in real terms under Labour, say the Conservatives; single women pensioners have been £21 a week better off under Labour, say the Conservatives; and couples of whom one partner works full time and one works part time are £14 a week better off under Labour, say the Conservatives. The Conservatives say that lone parents are £12 a week better off and that on average everybody is £9 a week better off because of our policies. I will take no lessons from the Conservative party about the cost of living under Labour.
	As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made a helpful and well informed speech. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), she pointed out that real wages have risen under the Government. Using Institute for Fiscal Studies data, the hon. Gentleman seemed to try to imply that incomes had fallen. I have read that report, which is extremely credible. However, the authors admit that the specific figure that he cited was within the scope of the margin of error, so it was not appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to use.
	Perhaps we should look at the report resulting from the survey of households of below-average incomes. It shows that the incomes of the poorest and richest 20 per cent. of households have risen by 2 per cent. a year since 1997 and that real household disposable incomes across the board have risen by 27 per cent. Let us put it all into context: from the 1980s until the mid-1990s, the real incomes of the poorest 20 per cent. of households rose by less than 1 per cent. a year, while those of the richest 20 per cent. rose by about 2.5 per cent. a year. It is absolutely clear that the tax credit, benefit and welfare to work policies of the Government have arrested the relative increase in income disparities that happened under Conservative Governments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North urged me to continue to focus on the needs of the working poor in our future policies, and we will of course always do that. On fuel poverty, I should point out that we have got the six major energy suppliers to increase their spending on the most vulnerable by £225 million. The Warm Front programme has been rolled out under the Government and it has had a huge effect, particularly in constituencies such as mine, which have a high proportion of old terraced housing. Driving costs are 16 per cent. lower under this Government than they were under the Conservative Government.  [ Interruption. ] I do not know why hon. Members are muttering among themselves. I can only presume that it is because they do not want to listen to the facts and are attempting, by spin and innuendo, to imply to the country that we have not made the enormous inroads that we have, as everybody knows from looking at their own standards of living compared with 10 years ago.
	We continue to work closely with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to find out what more can be done to reduce the burden on people who are having difficulties with their mortgage costs.
	We face some genuine issues that need to be addressed internationally as well as through domestic policy, and we are doing that. Today's debate has shown that Conservative Members have absolutely no ideas and no policies.

Jim Devine: I have the record of Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the national health service, in which the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the then shadow Health Minister started by saying:
	"The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has received an ovation from the Benches behind him for a speech as eloquent, as unconvincing, and as disingenuous as any I have ever heard from him."—[ Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 63.]
	When did the Conservative party start supporting the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I have not looked back—[hon. Members: "Oh!"] However, my recollection is that Conservative Members at the time, in opposition, took a view about the specific proposals that the Labour Government presented and objected to aspects of them. Labour Members appear to believe that the British Medical Association's difficulties at the time were a measure of its opposition to the NHS. It is no more true to say that the Conservative party since 1948 or today opposes the NHS than it is to say that the BMA opposes it. Neither statement is true and it is absurd to claim either.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I made no such commitment. Our commitments are clear: we are committed to the same increases in NHS spending up to 2010-11 as those in the Government's spending plan. Beyond 2010-11, my colleagues are committed to further real terms increases in NHS spending.

Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although most people recognise the anniversary, it is not being celebrated everywhere? For example, in Bridlington in my constituency, there is genuine concern that a relatively new hospital, which a Conservative Government built, maintained and sustained is under threat from the Labour Government, with services being cut.

Andrew Lansley: Let me say two things to the hon. Lady. First, I do not think that she has talked to many NHS staff, if that is the view that she reaches.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that hon. Lady thinks that that was true in the past, and that it is not true today. I am afraid that I have met many people who still feel that the culture in the NHS is such that they cannot speak out openly about what is happening. That should not be true, but unfortunately it still is.

Jim Devine: It might be helpful to the debate if Conservative Members in making their contributions or interjections told us whether they are covered by private medical insurance? The difference between Conservative and Labour Members is not only that we created the national health service, but that we actually use it, too.

Norman Lamb: The remarkable answer to that is that we have a postcode lottery now. It is alive and kicking, and we have no accountability for it. Around the country, bureaucrats and people appointed centrally are making the decisions about access to health care. They are not accountable to the communities that they serve. We have the very problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers under our existing highly centralised system. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we have it: it is there for everyone to see.
	We have a myriad bureaucratic targets, which are often contradictory and have unintended consequences. Unlike the Conservatives, I see a role for targets. Every well-run organisation has targets to improve its performance. In the private sector every good organisation has targets, and for the Conservatives to speak of getting rid of all targets seems utterly bizarre to me.

Norman Lamb: Despite that suggestion, I will not leave it out, because it is a central issue that needs to be addressed.
	We see endless botched reorganisations, and with every reorganisation come more payoffs to senior executives. They drive clinicians crazy, and they certainly drive the public crazy. A recent example is the enormous payoff—£700,000—to a chief executive of a hospital trust in Leicester, aged 52, who now receives a pension of some £60,000 a year while also working as a consultant for the Healthcare Commission. That sort of waste of money drives people mad.
	We are not the only people who say that the health service is ludicrously over-centralised. As she reached the end of her troubled tenure last year, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), made a speech to the London School of Economics in which she described the NHS as
	"four times the size of the Cuban economy and more centralised."
	That seems to me to describe it rather well, and I suspect that the right hon. Lady was in the best position to make the judgment, having tried to control the beast for so long.
	This, then, is Labour's NHS: loads of cash, the right instincts certainly, but dreadful waste and inefficiency and an absolute failure to let go. Interestingly, the Labour manifesto at the last general election made a bold claim—promise, indeed—to cut the number of staff in the Department of Health by a third, and to halve the number of quangos. Neither, of course, has happened. When we asked a question about the number of people working in the Department, the answer suggested that it was pretty much the same as the number three years ago.
	How can we meet the challenges of the future better than the top-down, command-and-control approach that has proved so wasteful over the past 10 years? We face enormous cost pressures in a modern health service. New technologies are emerging, and new drugs are constantly being developed. There is a continuing debate about top-ups and about how on earth we are to fund new drugs which, in many cases, can provide good clinical benefits but may not meet the NICE criteria for public funding. We face all the challenges posed by lifestyle conditions such as obesity, alcohol consumption and smoking; and, critically, we have a massively ageing population.
	I recently met a specialist in mental illness in the elderly in Liverpool. He showed me a graph showing the number of centenarians in our society over the next 50 years. It was frightening to observe the growth in the number of people who will reach the age of 100. At the same time, the ratio of people of working age to older people will change dramatically, so we are losing the work force that will provide the care for older people. Therefore, we face massive challenges. As well as all the extra cost pressures, we have to recognise that patients now expect something different. Nowadays, in all aspects of life, people behave as consumers—they want to make their own decisions and to have control over their lives. That is the case in health care as well, and the NHS must adapt to that. On top of all these matters, tackling the gross health inequalities that continue to afflict our country must be a priority in the years ahead.
	What is the Conservatives' solution? First, let me say that they are right to focus on outcomes. There can only be any point in all of this vast amount of public spending if we manage to make people stay healthier and live healthy, longer lives; that is the aim. However, that focus is only a partial solution, as willing the end does not always achieve delivery. We must always ask how we are going to achieve the improved outcomes that today's Conservative paper rightly points to the value of trying to achieve. Its approach is to scrap all national targets—to have no access incentives at all, as far as I can see. Under its plans, there will be no entitlements for individual patients across the country, wherever they live, to ensure that they get access to the health care they need.
	It is worth remembering the origins of targets. They emerged when the new Government came to power in 1997 because of the dreadful and unacceptable waste under the previous Conservative Government. The political debate in 1997 focused particularly on the fact that people were waiting so long for treatment. I remember when I was first elected to Parliament in 2001 taking up cases on behalf of constituents who were waiting three or four years for orthopaedic operations—for hip and knee-joint operations. It is worth remembering what it was like; it was dreadful.
	Therefore, I believe that access is an important issue in its own right. While waiting for treatment, people often suffer from anxiety and trauma. If they are waiting for a hip or knee-joint operation, when it finally takes place the outcome might demonstrate that the operation has been performed well, but if they have waited two years to have the operation, they will probably have waited in severe pain and will also probably have had a carer who had to cope with them in that condition during that period.

Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman makes his point.
	I now want to come up to date. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—[ Interruption.] Yes, I do. We both entered Parliament in 1997 and I have watched his career with interest. I hope that that is not too much of a bar to his future progress, if any. I have always thought that his personal position is sympathetic towards the NHS. His problem—and his party must address it—is that the instincts of his party and his leader do not align with his. The hon. Gentleman is forced to be a cheap and shallow salesman for the NHS. On closer examination, Conservative policy is smoke and mirrors. As we get closer to the election, in 18 or 24 months, we will want to return to that argument.
	The hon. Gentleman is also a roadblock to reform. He and his party will not support the necessary reforms to take the NHS into the 21st century, and I shall give a couple of examples of that. The Conservative leader has promised to scrap extended hours for GP surgeries. That is not taking GP practices into the 21st century: it is going backwards. The hon. Gentleman well knows that most people's experience of the NHS is through general practice and primary care. If his party scraps extended hours as it has promised to do, it will reduce people's access to primary care. That is the charge that he must answer, and on which the House must decide today by voting for either the motion or the amendment.
	A further roadblock to reform is that the Conservatives would scrap the guaranteed two-week treatment wait for those with suspected cancer. They would scrap the guarantee that all patients should be seen within 18 weeks, from their first visit to the GP to their operation. The Conservatives do not seem to like that target or that guarantee. Why not? When they come to power, if they ever do, they do not want to be put on the spot and to be expected to deliver an NHS run on such guidelines.

Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman mentions Clatterbridge, which is one of my local hospitals. I shall come back to it because I want to talk in detail about some of the work it does, so I am grateful that he mentioned it.
	I have mentioned salesmanship and smoke and mirrors, as well as the roadblock to reform. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has made empty promises on hospital closures, but the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), has already identified the problem: closures will be made without any political accountability, unlike at the moment. The Conservatives say that in effect there will be no local closures, but how on earth will the system be regulated when the service must modernise and new facilities, operation procedures and the like must be implemented— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is chuntering from a sedentary position, but he does not want to intervene.
	The Conservatives would also put NHS finances at risk and, as I have said, finance has been a contention between the parties down the years. The right hon. Member for Witney is on record as saying that his party would allow hospitals to borrow against building and equipment, but that would put the financial stability of local hospitals at risk. Who would bail them out if they went wrong? Would they be allowed to close under the independent board? The Conservative party must explain to my constituents why such financial instability would exist.
	I suspect that the reason that the Leader of the Opposition is considering the idea of local hospitals' borrowing against their capital is that an element of central funding would be cut, so local hospitals would be required to consider raising their budgets. That policy would reduce central responsibility and create local responsibility, but run the risk of creating a postcode lottery and financial insecurity for local hospitals.
	The final element of the roadblock to reform is that the Conservatives are against GP-led health centres. Again, if there was a 21st century, forward-looking Conservative programme, I cannot see why they would be against them. In my constituency, for example, there will be a GP-led health centre. It will not destabilise local GPs. That entirely new facility will be open from 8 am to 8 pm and will bring new doctors into the Wirral. My working constituents' busy lives will be enhanced, as they will be able to choose between dropping in at the new centre when that is appropriate or convenient or going to see their own GP. That is a significant reform and improvement of the service in my constituency.
	At the request of my colleague MPs on the Wirral, since 1997 I have had the lead responsibility for dealing with local NHS matters. For the past 11 years, I have been in constant touch with the PCT and all other health local providers in the area, and I should like to take this opportunity to review the improvements that have taken place.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that the target-driven system left no room for innovation at a local level. That is utterly wrong, and completely outside my experience over the past 11 years. A few months ago, I visited the Wirral university teaching hospital NHS foundation trust. That is my local hospital, and I was shown an example of innovation—a new machine in the urology department that enables the consultant to look at prostate trouble using a laser, thus eradicating the need for invasive surgery or investigation. The procedure takes only about two hours, as opposed to the overnight stay that used to be required.
	The machine is one of only two in the area, and I am pleased that my constituents have access to such an innovation. The urology consultant had read about it on the internet and then had a word with the hospital's chief executive and board of governors, who decided to buy it. That is a perfect example of how local innovation can make a new service available, and I simply do not understand how a system of targets designed to raise national standards and provide equity across the country can be said to be inimical to local innovation. Targets and local innovation can—and do—work side by side across the country.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned Clatterbridge, a specialist cancer trust and a world-class oncology centre that provides excellent and timely treatment for people in the north-west and the Isle of Man. A recent Healthcare Commission described it as "excellent", and Clatterbridge is a trust going forward into the 21st century.
	Again, the hon. Gentleman says, almost as a scaremongering tactic, that somehow the NHS is sclerotic in terms of its innovation. That trust has taken the courageous decision to spend £15 million to £30 million over the next five years on a linear accelerator across the water in Liverpool; that is a huge investment for a relatively small trust. It is doing that to save patients the trouble of having to come across the Mersey for treatment. That decision was taken at a local level—not through some strategic health authority or diktat from Whitehall. It will immeasurably improve patients' experiences. The families who come from Liverpool and points north of it will not have to travel so far.

Stephen Hesford: He does not.
	I have mentioned my local district general hospital in passing. Two things happened to that. Under the old system, it was a three-star hospital. It became a foundation hospital and is going from strength to strength, I am delighted to say. I do not recognise the stifling of innovation at a local level that has been mentioned. The institution that I have mentioned used to be the second largest non-teaching hospital in the country. It is now a teaching hospital because it was able to innovate with local universities to provide a £7 million education centre on the hospital campus. That decision was made locally by the hospital with the aim of upskilling its staff, and I welcome that.
	The final local organisation that I want to mention is the Wirral primary care trust. I am proud to be able to say, as I have said in the House on a previous occasion, that my local PCT has been recognised for its innovations in the Wirral, not least on public health. Towards the end of last year, it was voted the best primary care organisation in the country for 2007-08.
	It may be that those excellent, innovative organisations on the Wirral peninsula are unique. Of course I am proud of my constituency and proud of the Wirral, but I do not believe that that is the case—they are exemplars of what is going on around the country. It would be a huge coincidence if I just happened to be the lead MP for health in the Wirral and we had uniquely good health services. I would like to think that, but it is not so.
	I pay tribute to the staff in my local health service, which is the second largest employer in the Wirral. Some of the local practices have been innovative in working with part-time workers, ensuring that public transport is available, and advancing green issues by making imaginative use of the local Sainsbury's car park. Such arrangements have enabled staff and patients to use the hospital in different, innovative ways.
	I am proud that the local NHS in my constituency is in such good shape for the future. I commend the work of this Government and look forward to working with my hon. Friends as we take matters forward for another 60 years.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Mr. Speaker: If it is convenient for the House, I propose to put together motions 4, 5, 6 and 7.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Michael Clapham: I am pleased to have secured this debate this evening on open windrow composting. Let me say at the outset that I support the recycling of green waste. However, it must be done in a safe manner and without endangering the safety of those live in close proximity to recycling sites. It is in that context that I want to make two points in my contribution—about the danger associated with this type of process, and about public safety.
	I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her reply to me of 16 June 2008, which goes some way to answering some of my concerns, but I want to encourage her to go a little further. I will refer to her letter later and suggest how we may take the matter forward.
	The problems associated with open windrow composting were brought to my attention by local residents in my constituency who were protesting against the proposal for a composting site near to the village of Hood Green in the hinterland to the Pennines. I know that matters to do with the site are for the local planning authority and not for this debate, but I want to speak about the dangers generally associated with the open windrow composting process and what can be done to mitigate them.
	The process takes place on a large concrete base and the method of decay is helped by the natural internal combustion of the waste. As the green waste heats, the process of decay is facilitated. The waste is turned over by machine at intervals to ensure thorough decomposition. That agitation produces bioaerosols, which can be called organic dust. One such bioaerosol is Aspergillus fumigatus, a fungus that can cause serious respiratory damage and has been known to be fatal. There are other downsides to the process, including the odour that results—particularly from the run-off of rain, which can collect and stagnate. That adds to the sickening smell, which also attracts vermin and flies; they are a further hazard of the process.
	I want to draw the Minister's attention to the Giessen study, which took place in Germany; I shall read from its introduction and conclusions in a moment. I want to do that because the Environment Agency advises a 250 m precautionary buffer zone, although from its website it appears that the agency is not too sure of what the distance should be. That is an important issue.
	I contend that, on the evidence available, a 250 m buffer site is inadequate in many circumstances. In that context, I refer the Minister to a study carried out by scientists at the university of Giessen Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine on the effects of bioaerosol-polluted outdoor air on the airways of residents. It is dated 14 November 2005. I am advised that, for some strange reason, the study was not included in the Health and Safety Executive review of research report 130.
	The introduction to the study states:
	"A team of doctors, process engineers, microbiologists and meteorologists were assembled, and conducted this investigation into the effects of bio aerosol polluted air on the airways of residents. The study was double blinded to the ongoing microbial levels. A total of 356 medical questionnaires were collected from residents near a green waste compost site and also from an unexposed residential control area. The prevalence of health complaints were assessed against distance from site and the recorded microbiological pollution levels...The site near Giessen, Germany processes yard trimmings, grass cuttings and organic waste. The material is shredded, formed in windrows and turned regularly. Throughput is approximately 12500m(3) per year."
	The conclusions of the study are of great interest, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to them:
	"There is clear evidence of elevated health changes with residents living up to 500 metres from this green waste site. Mucus membrane infections are particularly elevated, shortness of breath is shown to be an effect of spore inhalation and excessive tiredness is distinctly linked to site emissions."
	The study continues:
	"This study is believed to be the first to actively show the causal link between levels of bio aerosols and health conditions. Other studies over the last 20 years have hypothesized over the effects on those living in close proximity to compost sites and have identified raised levels of fungal spores at 500 metres distant, but apart from stating that 'there is potential for chronic ill health, which may not yet have had time to manifest itself', no change in Environmental Agency recommendations for distances from sensitive receptors has yet emerged."
	The agency referred to is of course the German environment agency. It concludes in its final paragraph:
	"Fungal spores are common in air and every cubic metre of air breathed will contain a few minute spores. Generally the immune system can cope with levels above background, but in the area of a composting site the concentration of airborne spores is increased dramatically. Exposure should be limited wherever possible up to the 500 metre line where background levels then descend to normal."
	In effect, the study is saying that we should have a buffer zone of 500 m. Given that it is the most comprehensive study that has been done, I am rather surprised that it was not included in the HSE review of research report 130.
	The Minister will be aware of the Stourbridge case, where, on 10 December, a composting site that was within 250 m of residential homes was closed. A man who acted as a consultant to the group that opposed the site advises me that it was closed because of excessive amounts of odour and bioaerosol emissions; I know that the Environment Agency takes a different view. He has provided me with the medical backgrounds of 12 of the 14 victims. Two of the 12 were suffering from the Aspergillus fungus; the others had picked up different infections on top of their chest conditions. Since the closure, I am advised that the five people who have been followed up have all reported that their health has improved and that they are using only half the medicines that they were prescribed at the time when the site was open. If we not only look at the Giessen study but draw on the experience gained from Stourbridge, it is clear that important evidence links the victims to the inhalation of organic dust from those composting sites.
	The Minister may be interested in the work that is being done at Sheffield university. The Environment Agency decided on its 250 m buffer zone on the basis of a study carried out on flat lands in Norfolk, but when people from Sheffield university investigated how the wind carries spores in the hinterland to the Pennines, they found that it blows up the hill and then forms a kind of vortex on the other side, carrying some of the spores up to 1 km further than was previously supposed. It is important that we take into consideration the terrain for which many composting applications are made. I understand from a similar study that the Californian authorities have decided to go with a 500 m buffer zone instead of the shorter one that was previously used.
	As the Minister will be aware, there are alternatives to open windrow processing, including complete enclosure and a system called IVC—in-vessel composting—which operates almost like a low-pressure cooker and deals with the green waste without producing the bioaerosols.
	Problems may be created in the work environment for employees, and that issue should also be considered closely.
	The Minister wrote me a helpful letter—it included one point on which we may be able to make further progress—in which she referred to the development of amenity risk assessments at waste management facilities. She wrote:
	"This project will help to develop methods for estimating downwind concentrations of bio-aerosols and focus on improving data availability to support research into dispersion modelling."
	As I say, dispersion modelling is being done at Sheffield university. She went on to say:
	"The report will describe a number of peer reviewed journal papers examining bio-aerosol production and dispersal."
	It is in that context that I urge her to ask that the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, which has a public health function, look at the Giessen study. As far as I can see, it is the foremost study on composting in the community.
	In conclusion, I ask the Minister to do four things. First, I would like her not only to ensure that the HSE and the Environment Agency review the Giessen study, but to encourage them to take a cautious view on recommendations of a more appropriate buffer zone, particularly in areas such as the hinterland to the Pennines, where it is very hilly and we get the sort of wind problems and vortexes to which I referred. I would also be pleased if she advises that research done before 2000 is outdated, because much of the relevant literature is more recent. The Cornell Waste Management Institute, which is an Ivy league institute, is making that recommendation. Will she ask the HSE to advise on the best and safest composting method for employees and the public? Finally, will she ask local authorities to defer any proposals for new sites until the Environment Agency and the HSE advice is available so that we can ensure public safety in the future?

Joan Ruddock: May I give my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, that assurance? I am determined to look into all the issues that have been raised. As I said in my letters, if the research throws up new factors, it will of course be appropriate to review the situation, and we will have to look at the conditions surrounding the permits and exemptions—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.